4 ms·

He is describing hypothetical people who purposely infecting others with a deadly disease and then laughing about it. This was the bubonic plague. He is not c

by PakG1 7y ago

He is describing hypothetical people who purposely infecting others with a deadly disease and then laughing about it. This was the bubonic plague. He is not calling for vigilante justice, but rather for government action leading to capital punishment by the authorities. I thought you were referring to some kind of vigilante justice the way Duterte in the Philippines called for people to pick up guns and kill suspected drug dealers with their own hands. I'm not for capital punishment. But calling for capital punishment enacted by the authorities leads to a debate about whether capital punishment is good or bad, and I wouldn't call into question someone's character just because they support eye-for-an-eye capital punishment. If they were supporting eye-for-an-eye vigilante justice, I'd be very scared. But capital punishment is a debate that happens every day, and I don't say that anyone who supports it is a deplorable person. I do try to convince them why I think capital punishment is a bad idea, but that's different from calling into question their character.

perl4ever 7y ago
"He is describing hypothetical people" He's not talking about hypothetical criminals and capital punishment in a modern sense. He's talking about a vague concept that seems to overlap with the witches that were burned over several centuries. He's talking about "people" who may be devils and not human. And saying they need to be hanged by an official in no way implies that is the only acceptable way of dealing with them. I don't mean to suggest he's other than a product of his time. He couldn't know that fleas spread the plague. So ignorance of what was going on would have had terrible consequences in trying to assign blame. But people do try to shoehorn sages from centuries ago into a modern sensibility.
- PakG1 7y ago
  I'm not sure. He seems to add a lot of caveats that indicate he doesn't necessarily believe the stories to be real (emphasis mine): "I do not know whether I should believe this; if it is true, I do not know whether we Germans are not really devils instead of human beings. It must be admitted that there are some extremely coarse and wicked people. The devil is never idle. My advice is that if any such persons are discovered" I think he did know that the plague was spread by something physical. He talks about fumigation. And he's not wrong to say that social distancing is preferred. He doesn't seem to be any different from people condemning spring breakers in Florida who have outright stated that they don't care if they get the virus. His reaction is more extreme, but he was saying that if such people are blatantly infecting others with a known deadly disease and laughing about it, they should correspondingly be punished with death. He is not suggesting that he himself or anyone individual should execute them. He is suggesting that they should be punished by the authorities by death. Calling them devils, if I read in the context of the whole thing, he seems to be using hyperbole, not sincerely believing them to be supernatural beings, but rather, just something evil the way that some people may call serial killers or morbid gang members devils. He does say that such people could be influenced by "the devil", a supernatural being, but that's not a huge surprise, given his beliefs, and it's certainly not something he dwells on. If he truly believed them to be devils instead of using hyperbole, I'm sure that his recommended remedy would be something along the lines of prayer and exorcism for them, not hanging. Rather, he focuses on the behaviour and the corresponding punishment, not the supernatural. If he focused his letter more on the supernatural than he does, I'd be inclined to agree with your conclusions. Like I've read some American preachers apparently talk about COVID-19 in a very religious vein, much more than what I see in this letter. Those people really focus on the religious stuff, not the physical behaviour. I don't see that in Luther's letter. Given what I've read here, I think he is focused more on social realities and talking about hypothetical criminals and capital punishment in a modern sense. He does use religious language and logic to explain his points, but I can excuse him for that, given his background and occupation. We need to be able to understand whether our interpretation matches what someone is intending to say, it's very easy for our interpretations to be wrong, especially if one is using hyperbole. Yes, I could be wrong too, of course.
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    You could defend him in just the same manner if he was talking about witches casting spells on people or Jews poisoning wells. I mean, if there really were people who did that stuff, it would be bad. And quite possibly he would be cautious and skeptical within his worldview about accusations and contemporary due process. Doesn't make him a modern person and I'd hope you would not defend a modern person who acted similarly.

by PakG1 7y ago

perl4ever 7y ago

"He is describing hypothetical people" He's not talking about hypothetical criminals and capital punishment in a modern sense. He's talking about a vague concept that seems to overlap with the witches that were burned over several centuries. He's talking about "people" who may be devils and not human. And saying they need to be hanged by an official in no way implies that is the only acceptable way of dealing with them. I don't mean to suggest he's other than a product of his time. He couldn't know that fleas spread the plague. So ignorance of what was going on would have had terrible consequences in trying to assign blame. But people do try to shoehorn sages from centuries ago into a modern sensibility.

PakG1 7y ago
I'm not sure. He seems to add a lot of caveats that indicate he doesn't necessarily believe the stories to be real (emphasis mine): "I do not know whether I should believe this; if it is true, I do not know whether we Germans are not really devils instead of human beings. It must be admitted that there are some extremely coarse and wicked people. The devil is never idle. My advice is that if any such persons are discovered" I think he did know that the plague was spread by something physical. He talks about fumigation. And he's not wrong to say that social distancing is preferred. He doesn't seem to be any different from people condemning spring breakers in Florida who have outright stated that they don't care if they get the virus. His reaction is more extreme, but he was saying that if such people are blatantly infecting others with a known deadly disease and laughing about it, they should correspondingly be punished with death. He is not suggesting that he himself or anyone individual should execute them. He is suggesting that they should be punished by the authorities by death. Calling them devils, if I read in the context of the whole thing, he seems to be using hyperbole, not sincerely believing them to be supernatural beings, but rather, just something evil the way that some people may call serial killers or morbid gang members devils. He does say that such people could be influenced by "the devil", a supernatural being, but that's not a huge surprise, given his beliefs, and it's certainly not something he dwells on. If he truly believed them to be devils instead of using hyperbole, I'm sure that his recommended remedy would be something along the lines of prayer and exorcism for them, not hanging. Rather, he focuses on the behaviour and the corresponding punishment, not the supernatural. If he focused his letter more on the supernatural than he does, I'd be inclined to agree with your conclusions. Like I've read some American preachers apparently talk about COVID-19 in a very religious vein, much more than what I see in this letter. Those people really focus on the religious stuff, not the physical behaviour. I don't see that in Luther's letter. Given what I've read here, I think he is focused more on social realities and talking about hypothetical criminals and capital punishment in a modern sense. He does use religious language and logic to explain his points, but I can excuse him for that, given his background and occupation. We need to be able to understand whether our interpretation matches what someone is intending to say, it's very easy for our interpretations to be wrong, especially if one is using hyperbole. Yes, I could be wrong too, of course.
- perl4ever 7y ago
  You could defend him in just the same manner if he was talking about witches casting spells on people or Jews poisoning wells. I mean, if there really were people who did that stuff, it would be bad. And quite possibly he would be cautious and skeptical within his worldview about accusations and contemporary due process. Doesn't make him a modern person and I'd hope you would not defend a modern person who acted similarly.